Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Toys?

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 211 posts

Re: Why Toys?

#151

Post by jey »

kbenson wrote: post #123
jpwagner wrote: post #20

The best dichotomy I've heard for this is: Are you building [Ice Skates] or are you building [Ear muffs]? Ice skates allow you to do something new that you didn't even know you had a demand for. Ear muffs solve a problem that you were already solving poorly (with your hands). [Business vs toy] is an insanely counterproductive mental framework which will create a false sense of security in founders who are actually bu…

Why do I suspect that the global market for ice skates, which now includes ice skating rinks in many areas that don't get ice, and supports multiple sports, such as Hockey, Curling (not to mention the Olympic level sports), is actually (much) more than ear muffs. I mean, I was honestly trying to figure out which way you were going with that analogy while reading is, because it seemed to cut against your point. Perhap…

The grandparent post isn't making a value judgment, it's just pointing out that the two cases should be approached and marketed differently. (And should avoid deluding yourself into thinking you have ice skates when you actually have something nobody actually wants.)

Re: Why Toys?

#152

Post by kbenson »

jey wrote: post #151
kbenson wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do I suspect that the global market for ice skates, which now includes ice skating rinks in many areas that don't get ice, and supports multiple sports, such as Hockey, Curling (not to mention the Olympic level sports), is actually (much) more than ear muffs. I mean, I was honestly trying to figure out which way you were going with that analogy while reading is, because it seemed to cut against your point. Perhap…

The grandparent post isn't making a value judgment, it's just pointing out that the two cases should be approached and marketed differently. (And should avoid deluding yourself into thinking you have ice skates when you actually have something nobody actually wants.)

You're right. I also either didn't read the end of the original comment correctly, or it was changed later. The end of it seems to be making some of the same argument I was trying to, so my comment doesn't make a lot of sense.

Eh, I should know better than to comment when I'm that worked up about something. It's too easy to get tunnel vision. :/

Re: Why Toys?

#153

Post by sattoshi »

k__ wrote: post #149
marcosdumay wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SaaS can not interoperate. Thus feature-poor SaaS are useless.

Could you please elaborate?

If Google Docs provides featureset A,B,C and Office 365 provides features A,B,D; you can never have both C and D at the same time.

Re: Why Toys?

#154

Post by marcosdumay »

k__ wrote: post #149
marcosdumay wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SaaS can not interoperate. Thus feature-poor SaaS are useless.

Could you please elaborate?

UNIX tools can focus on solving a single problem well because they interoperate between themselves, so you can join tools that solve different problems and make something useful out of it.

SaaS has no such option. It either does every little thing you need, or it doesn't solve the problem.

Re: Why Toys?

#155

Post by brucephillips »

marcosdumay wrote: post #143
TeMPOraL wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I wanted to suggest an exact opposite. I'd love to have seen those products of yours. In the alternate universe I live in, almost all the SaaS products I see are toys, never progressing beyond MVP phase.

SaaS can not interoperate. Thus feature-poor SaaS are useless.

SaaS products interoperate through APIs.

Re: Why Toys?

#156

Post by ehnto »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #107
ryandrake wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s about time we turn “feature rich” around and start considering it a criticism rather than a compliment. So many products I’ve loved as a consumer and worked on as a developer were eventually ruined by relentless feature cram and their never being declared “done”.

Interesting. I wanted to suggest an exact opposite. I'd love to have seen those products of yours. In the alternate universe I live in, almost all the SaaS products I see are toys, never progressing beyond MVP phase.

Do you have any examples of some products you see as missing features? No need for particular names.

It might mean there is room for a new product in their space that can cater to power users or enterprise clients.

Re: Why Toys?

#157

Post by marvy »

sattoshi wrote: post #153
k__ wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please elaborate?

If Google Docs provides featureset A,B,C and Office 365 provides features A,B,D; you can never have both C and D at the same time.

Is this specific to SAAS? Suppose Word 2003 has A,B,D and WordPerfect has A,B,C, can you ever have C and D at the same time?

Re: Why Toys?

#158

Post by stealthcat »

jpwagner wrote: post #20

The best dichotomy I've heard for this is: Are you building [Ice Skates] or are you building [Ear muffs]? Ice skates allow you to do something new that you didn't even know you had a demand for. Ear muffs solve a problem that you were already solving poorly (with your hands). [Business vs toy] is an insanely counterproductive mental framework which will create a false sense of security in founders who are actually bu…

An extreme example would be porn industry.

No benefits but toys are really profitable to be simply let go.

Re: Why Toys?

#159

Post by ehnto »

marcosdumay wrote: post #143
TeMPOraL wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I wanted to suggest an exact opposite. I'd love to have seen those products of yours. In the alternate universe I live in, almost all the SaaS products I see are toys, never progressing beyond MVP phase.

SaaS can not interoperate. Thus feature-poor SaaS are useless.

I have always considered this the great tragedy of APIs. Their promise is so great yet there are few ways of actually working with them outside of explicit vendor integrations that account for the idiosyncracies between most software. Noting that most SaaS is just differing UI interacting with object models, and it's a bummer that we build this way. It's like we are collectively building a rail network, but every single town uses a unique guage of rails.

Ecommerce software is about as close to okay at it as I have seen, but still vendor driven and still full of idiosyncracies. I can at least create a product in a PIM and it pipes through to all the places it needs to go once it is set up.

Re: Why Toys?

#160

Post by pvg »

philwelch wrote: post #4

> This trend does not fit with history either. Standard Oil, US Steel, and Boeing were all iconically huge companies that were built as businesses. None of them went through a phase where they looked like toys. This is largely because "inventing a new thing" and "building a massive business from that invention" are more closely linked now than they have been, historically. Standard Oil and US Steel postdated the inve…

The rapid development of ICs was greatly influenced by their military applications, there wouldn't have been anything to make an Apple I or II out of without that.
Post reply on HN